Reform UK has selected the party’s candidate to stand in the Queen’s Park by-election for a seat on Brighton and Hove City Council.
The party has picked John Shepherd, 65, a journalist who has lived in Brighton for 20 years and who also stood in the by-election in the same ward a year ago.
Mr Shepherd, who lives in the ward, said: “It’s time that the residents of Queen’s Park had a councillor who is prepared to stand for the full term and deliver real change.”
The by-election next month is the third in the two-member ward since the local elections in May 2023, with all three triggered by the resignation of councillors elected as Labour candidates.
The latest by-election was called earlier this month after the resignation of Milla Gauge who cited concerns about child protection, particularly for youngsters who were confused about their gender identity.
Mr Shepherd said: “If elected, my focus will be on reducing anti-social behaviour and crime, prioritising council housing for local families and addressing fly-tipping and issues with street cleaning.
“I will also stand up for parents and work to protect children from gender ideology in the classroom. Children should not be socially transitioned at school or prescribed puberty blockers.”
Reform UK Brighton and Hove chairman Martin Hess said: “Once again, a Labour councillor has let the people of Queen’s Park down by failing to serve their full term.
“After record Reform UK wins in East Sussex County Council elections in May 2026, it shows people here want real change.
“A vote for John and Reform UK at this by-election will be the first step towards ending the chaos of both Labour and the Greens which has wreaked havoc in Brighton and Hove for too long.”
Reform UK said that was “the fastest growing political party and exists to fix a broken Britain through common-sense policies on immigration, the economy, the NHS and restoring national sovereignty”.
The party added: “We believe in challenging the political establishment, cutting the cost of living and putting British people first.”
Reform are no.1
LETS HOPE THAT IS THE CASE….
LETS HOPE THAT IS THE CASE….
Jolly good luck to Johnny,eh?
More like a number 2.
John Shepherd recently stood down after a stint as editor at large for Batteries International, who describe themselves as “a media and information outlet that covers the battery industry and its crucial role in accelerating the transition to net zero emissions by supporting renewable energy integration, electric vehicles, and grid stabilization.” How long before he defects to the Greens?
To John Shepherd I would say this: I remember my email correspondence immediately before last September’s by-election, when I raised these issues with you. Having ignored the issue you were suddenly quite clear then about your support for Reform’s policies on gender ideology and single-sex provision, and you told me that you did not “ignore or side-step issues of concern raised by anyone – especially Queen’s Park residents”. Fair enough – I can only assume that deleting my questions from the Reform FB page was carried out by the previous chair – glad to see a new chair is in place.
I would be interested to know what you actually did, as a local candidate, with the specific safeguarding concerns that residents were raising at the time — including the questions put to candidates by PSHEbrighton.org? I gather you – like the Green and Labour candidates ignored those questions.
If you are now seeking election again on a platform of concern about safeguarding, I hope you will be prepared to engage with the specific local questions PSHEbrighton send you. Residents are entitled to ask not only what candidates say they believe, but what they did when these concerns were raised previously.
John mentioned ESCC wins, but has anyone actually watched them in meetings? It’s beyond dire. Look at their “shop window” council, KCC, and the disaster that’s been which are beyond parody. Pretty much his whole statement can be summed up as he read the latest headlines and used all the buzzwords…
You’ve obviously not watched a recent BHCC meeting, Benjamin. Beyond “dire” and riddled with small talk and cliches as everyone filibusters towards a seemingly pre-determined conclusion in most cases. A lot of participants are getting missed off the Attendee list too under Ms Sankey’s administration, which is not on, with substitutes also unmentioned, meaning official council records are becoming more and more riddled with inaccuracies. The webcasts are no less ropey with dodgy translation software either missing details or misinterpreting what is happening, participants’ names not kept visible at all times and electronic participants from home regularly subject to glitches and even cut offs.
Intellectual rigor, debate and genuine opposition in BHCC Council meetings have become as rare as rocking horse deposits.
Brighton hasn’t involved insisting on everyone singing the national anthem though, and reciting specific religious texts regardless of personal religion, have they? Or attempting to censor books akin to Nazi Germany? Typical politicking has nothing on some of the ridiculousness of Reform. Let’s remind ourselves that Reform wanted to ban promotion of literature around Black History Month and Pride in Essex, the very council that John here is boasting of winning.
One has to wonder the wisdom of a man who wants to align himself with a company that promotes such bigotry or a person who seeks to defend it.
What a load of piffle. Have you never heard of treating all literature the same and letting people make their own minds up? Or maybe that’s why Labour and the Greens hate Libraries. Some literature is more important than other literature. Some people have more human rights than other people and then play the victim when they are not promoted/recognised as having more human rights and being more important than other people.
Erm…I have, that’s why I am calling out Reform for attempting to censor literature they don’t like.
Shame on you Tracy Ward.
Oh, and my other thought; Reform Ltd’s Suella Braverman denied saying homelessness was a “lifestyle choice” this week, despite it still being on her twitter page, following the party’s constant stream of “ignorant, stigmatizing, and factually incorrect” as described by Shelter and Big Issue.
One has to wonder the wisdom of a candidate who aligns himself with an organisation like that, whilst claiming he wants to prioritising council housing for local families, despite that already being prioritised by Labour right now.
What about those who refuse shelters and housing because they want to be on the streets for easy access to drugs? Remember when all the hotels were made available to homeless people during Covid to “keep them safe” and we should have had completely clear streets during lockdown, yet a significant number chose to remain on the streets? Many European countries have removed this option. It’s a hostel room or jail for the night. Though some get so cold overnight the homeless would not survive being allowed to stay outside, so this is actually compassion in action. The way forward is to remove living on the streets as an option in this country to bring ourselves in line with most other civilised countries, of which this used to be one.
You couldn’t be further from the truth here Tracy Ward. Having worked with the homeless during COVID, many of them seeking to recover from drugs and alcohol we’re fully surrounded by it in the hotels. The only way to keep safe and sober for them was to be on the streets.
You also refer to living on the streets as an option. Perhaps you can tell this directly to the women I’ve worked with on the streets who have fled their homes due to domestic violence. Their vulnerabilities are on show in places like homeless hostels, and predators quickly find a way in. This by-election has come about because of people ignoring the voices of women, particularly those who need safeguarding, and your rhetoric certainly contributes to silencing them. Shame on you Tracy Ward.
Good luck John. You sound like the most sensible candidate so far. And no obvious conflicts of interest either, unlike with the Green candidate who earns his money from council contracts.
I would assume that John makes the fact that he is gay aware to all reform voters?
Also are reform voters in his area aware that “puberty blockers” are not allowed under NHS unless a chook has an early offset of puberty.
Yes as part of a clinical trial or maybe private treatment, but that would come through parents agreement just like any other treatment that a child has…
The area does have many problems but does it need a reform candidate to fix them? No it just needs somebody with some decency rather than relying on political rhetoric and heresay to get into an office…
Yes, sorry the homeless problem, sort the inadequacy of police in the area but don’t aim for issues like gender to win your seat…
Just to clarify one factual point: puberty blockers have not been “banned” generally. They remain licensed medicines for conditions such as central precocious puberty. What NHS England changed in 2024 was their use for children with gender incongruence/dysphoria: they are no longer routinely available for that purpose and NHS policy says they should not be prescribed outside a clinical study.
So it isn’t accurate to suggest that the only question is whether a child has early-onset puberty. The controversy concerns their use for gender-related purposes, where NHS England concluded that the evidence was insufficient for routine treatment.
That distinction matters in Queen’s Park because the concerns raised here are not about whether children should receive appropriate healthcare. They are about safeguarding, clinical governance and what happened locally when gender-related treatment was provided to under-18s.
The fact that the WellBN prescribing route has now been stopped does not, however, answer the wider safeguarding question. An independent review should examine the whole “classroom-to-clinic” pathway — including what happens when children move from school-based gender support towards private providers — and establish whether the systems around them have adequate safeguards.
I hope John Shepherd can be bothered to answer the candidate questions sent by PSHEbrighton.org this time.
I’d suggest looking at Reform’s track record on that particular issue, Adrian.
Keep up! My clash with local Reform was bitter last year. The then Chair did everything to obliterate discussion on the schools safeguarding scandal and poor John Shepherd had to go along with it. Glad to see a new Chair is in place now.
I remember Reform’s ex-chair’s racist and misogynistic tweets, very clearly reported on. Problem is, of course, is that was behaviour that’s not localised to Brighton, but one that can be exampled throughout the whole party. Hence why I said I’d suggest looking at Reform’s track record on that particular issue, and not just the local party, Adrian.
Your comments also elaborate a suspicion that John toes the party line and is unwilling/unable to challenge something that is clearly morally reprehensible. Your single issue isn’t helped by this candidate, nor does he have the party backing behind it – quite the opposite, it seems.
Adrian how do I Keep up …. with a wind bag ! When they fill you with air … out come your speech ! When can I vote…. to remove the air !
Absolute waste of time. You might get the odd vote on the fringes like Patcham or Portslade but nobody in the rest of the city is going to give you the time of day.
Given the toxic bullying culture of Labour and the Greens and their intolerance of anyone who takes a different view, it takes a brave candidate to stand for Reform. Bravery is one of the top qualities I look for in a potential Councillor and not just another parachute drone who toes the line and votes as whipped. Best of luck Mr Shepherd.
So, you’re supporting the Reform candidate that toes the Reform party lines…because he doesn’t toe the party lines? Bit contradictory, isn’t it?
Trans people must be one one of the smallest minorities in Brighton but the only policy John has is targeting them.
Almost certainly just trend chasing.
Jon – Help me out. I tried to find anything John Shepherd said that even mentioned trans identified people let alone targeted them. Are you referring to this: “I will also stand up for parents and work to protect children from gender ideology in the classroom. Children should not be socially transitioned at school or prescribed puberty blockers.” If you are then its depressing that legitimate safeguarding concerns are interpreted like this. In fact its a huge part of the safeguarding blind spot. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c932y3q09qro
You’re intelligent enough to put that together with Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people, Adrian. One person once described it on here as “a creepy opportunism that makes me wonder if Reform UK have lost the plot where B&H local elections are concerned…what a clown show Reform are.”
As you well know Benjamin when I spoke of Reform’s creepy opportunism a year ago I was referring to the hypocrisy of their local Chair who had bounced from Brighton & Hove Independents to Reform. I’m curious though Benjamin, when your say “Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people” what do you mean? I ask because I think you mean ‘transgender ideology’ not people. In the documented examples you might find from national media you’ll see that it is ‘gender ideology’ being referred to and opposition to it being taught in schools (leading to social transitioning), and leading to attacks on women’s sex based rights.
There’s surely plenty to criticise Reform about without inventing a slur Benjamin? And why not stick to the focus on what John Shepherd has actually said in this article? My criticism of John is this: he states “I will also stand up for parents and work to protect children from gender ideology in the classroom”, but since he ran in the by-election a year ago he’s had 12 months to contact the parents group PSHEbrighton.org and meet us or contribute to exposing the scandal inside our schools. But he didn’t; zero mention of this last year presumably because the then chair thought it better to tip toe round that issue, but now, post WellBN revelations and Milla’s resignation I guess Reform thinks there’s a few votes in it.
When I say Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people can be seen in Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people, I mean that there is a well-documented intolerance of transgender people by Reform that can be seen in Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people. There’s no invention required, just a recorded history.
Reform PLC is a party explicitly hostile to transgender rights, characterised by its opposition to legal gender recognition and its campaign against it – their own party manifesto claims it is nothing more than indoctrination…ironically perhaps. Not to mention attacking professional bodies like the CIPD for promoting inclusive workplace policies. That’s a clear message stating Reform don’t think transgender people should exist. If that’s not an intolerance by definition; and I’m struggling not to pull parallels to an infamous fascist regime.
John saying one thing but standing for a party that clearly thinks another is a contradiction. But yeah, I agree with you, they think there are a few votes in it.
A vote for Reform PLC only enriches the owners who avoid taxes by residing or banking overseas whilst claiming to be patriotic. They must be running out of pockets!
Benjamin comments: “When I say Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people can be seen in Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people, I mean that there is a well-documented intolerance of transgender people by Reform that can be seen in Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people. There’s no invention required, just a recorded history.
Reform PLC is a party explicitly hostile to transgender rights, characterised by its opposition to legal gender recognition and its campaign against it – their own party manifesto claims it is nothing more than indoctrination…ironically perhaps. Not to mention attacking professional bodies like the CIPD for promoting inclusive workplace policies. That’s a clear message stating Reform don’t think transgender people should exist. If that’s not an intolerance by definition; and I’m struggling not to pull parallels to an infamous fascist regime.
John saying one thing but standing for a party that clearly thinks another is a contradiction. But yeah, I agree with you, they think there are a few votes in it.” ………….
Thanks for proving my point, Benjamin. You’ve conflated the critique of a heavily flawed ideology with intolerance of trans identified people. Its helpful though, because you illuminate the problem parents groups like PSHEbrighton.org encounter with this council – we say “safeguarding” and they immediately interpret that as ‘anti-trans’. When local parents or the NHS investigation into WellBN raise a safeguarding alarm, we are talking about children—not politics. The WellBN patient safety report confirmed 78 children were put at risk of harm right here in Brighton and Hove. According to the data, 53 of them had possible neurodevelopmental issues, and many were put on life-altering pathways without specialist oversight or face-to-face checks. Labeling child safeguarding as ‘fascism’ is a cheap tactic to shut down debate. The Cass Review, the ‘Time to Think’ bestseller by ex-Newsnight investigative reporter Hannah Barnes and recent NHS findings have made it clear that social transition policies in schools have real-world catastrophic clinical consequences. Challenging those policies isn’t bigotry; it is a non-negotiable safeguard for vulnerable kids. (As an aside – lets see your ‘well-documented’ evidence? You’re a bit of twit if you think child-safeguarding is an attack on anyone’s literal right to live or exist safely.
Strawmanning has – once again – served you poorly. That kind of behaviour might explain why your vote share collapsed at the last by-election. Bringing it back to what I actually said, Reform’s flawed ideology is one of intolerance; the intolerance leads to the hateful ideology. Perhaps I have been giving you too much credit to understand this concept?
So again. There’s a clear message stating Reform don’t think transgender people should exist, that is fascism, by definition, and that doesn’t deserve a platform. For someone who focuses on this single issue, you’re doing an awful lot to defend a TERF company like Reform.
Linking it back to the article, John choosing to stand for them twice now, with all Reform’s well-documented intolerance of transgender people, will be perceived as someone who accepts this evil. He won’t win here, because the residents of Queen’s Park are better than that.
I’m no fan of Reform but do you not think your assertion “Reform don’t think transgender people should exist” requires evidence? If the evidence is “well-documented” then it would surely only take you a minute? Or have you stomped off in a huff?
Happy to repeat myself on this point, because it’s important people are aware that this is actual Reform policy.
Reform have repeatedly been opposed to legal gender recognition and has actively campaigned against it. The source is Reform’s own party manifesto. They also want to repeal the Equality Act, that specifically protects the rights of transpeople from discrimination, scrap equalities, and ban DEI.
A YouGov poll also found that two-thirds of Reform voters believe transpeople should not be allowed to legally change gender, and Reform-controlled councils have begun implementing anti-trans policies, such as library bans on Pride promotion and cuts to Pride funding.
Reform stated policies reflect genuine intent rather than mere rhetoric.
Ok – I can see the muddle you’re in now. Nobody is disputing that Reform has policies on sex, gender recognition, the Equality Act and DEI which many people strongly disagree with. Nor is there anything illegitimate about criticising those policies. But there is a huge difference between opposing a particular conception of legal gender recognition and believing that transgender people should not exist.
Trans people are not being “erased” because someone thinks that biological sex matters in law. A person can believe that sex should have a defined legal meaning, that single-sex provisions should be retained, that children should not be socially transitioned at school, or that the Equality Act should be replaced — and still believe that trans people should be treated with dignity and protected from discrimination.
You may think Reform’s proposed policies are wrong, dangerous or discriminatory, that’s a perfectly legitimate political argument. But to take a position amounting to ‘they disagree with me about gender recognition, therefore they want trans people erased, therefore fascism” is just a chain of increasingly extreme assertions. God, I hope Mark Strong isn’t going down that road! (it will send voters toward Reform not away – because its so obviously absurd – that said, it does sound like something Zack would say).
Benjamin, if every disagreement over sex and gender is presented as evidence of fascism, people who have perfectly ordinary concerns about safeguarding, women’s rights, single-sex spaces or the legal meaning of sex are eventually going to conclude that mainstream parties simply don’t want to hear them.
In other words don’t turn political disagreement into a claim that a political party wants a minority of citizens to “not exist” unless you can actually demonstrate that proposition.